The State of English Football

MisterAnarchy

I just wanted to raise a few issues in relation to the current state of English football.
Has the standard ever been so low ?
I am a fan of passing ,flowing football,keeping the ball on the ground and playing to feet.
Football should be a creative not destructive game.
Fans primarily want their team to win matches but they also want to be entertained.
The average standard of a Premiership match is very poor.
The pace of play is ridiculous ,its as if the match is being played at 100 miles an hour.
In any game the away team will generally have 9-10 men behind the ball on most occasions,and rely upon,the long ball or catching a team on the break to score.
Some teams rely on setpieces as their best chance of scoring.
They deduce that if they can keep a clean sheet,and keep the ball in their opponents half,on the law of averages they will score.
Composure is missing in English football.
I am a fan of Spanish football.
Last night Real Sociedad and Villareal played out a very entertaining match.
The ball remained on the ground for most of the match and the ball was in play for long periods at a time.
The fans demand that the game be played in a positive manner and as the fans own most of the clubs the teams attempt to play good football.
Contrast this with England.
Never has the state of football been so poor there.
It seems if you are fast ,strong and athletic you have the making of a valuable footballer.Skill seems to be secondary.
The pace of the game is far too fast.
Passing football is almost frowned upon as if you make a bad pass it could be intercepted.
Its 'Fear' football.
Most goals in England are scored due to a defensive error under extreme pressure rather that a creative moment.
Players are encouraged to get rid of the ball ,instead of holding it.
How many times after a match has a manager said 'We showed great commitment,fought hard,battled hard,showed great tenacity ' ?
What about skill ?
What about hearing 'We played some good flowing football '?
The top 2 teams in the Premiership (Chelsea and Liverpool) have based their success on a solid defence and are 2 extremely defensive sides that primarily rely on the long ball.
There motto is that if we dont concede then we can grind the opponent down .
I watch football to be entertained and I wont pay £40 to watch drivel.
Andy Gray and his chums on Sky believe the Premiership is the best league in the world.
He is delusional.
I cant remember the last time I saw a good game of football in the Premiership.
I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this topic.

applehunter

You sir, are a SNOB.:D

Memnoch

Agree fully with the OP, football in the premiereship is more akin to rugby than anything else. They seem to be more interseted in kicking each other than kicking the ball, give me fast flowing passing football anyway please.

Agree also about skill vs "defence".

applehunter

I thing the standard of striker in the Premiership is excellent. There is less emphasis on the cultured footballer in midfield though.

The Muppet

Its down to personal taste, Personallly I much prefer the english style fast paced physical game ahead of the continetal style game.

KdjaCL

Blame Greece tbh.

kdjac

Hagar

Why is the style of play so different to other countries given that such a large percentage of the players are not English and would have brought their style and skills with them?
Surely this is a question of management failure in capitalising on those skills rather than lack of skill from the players?

The Muppet

Hagar wrote:

Why is the style of play so different to other countries given that such a large percentage of the players are not English and would have brought their style and skills with them?
Surely this is a question of management failure in capitalising on those skills rather than lack of skill from the players?

The english game is a much more physical game and is played at a much quicker pace. On the continent players go down under the slightest contact , that does not happen as much in the english game with a few notable exceptions.

Veron is a prime example of a player that was judged to be world class when he played in Italy because he had all the time in the world to play his game. He flopped in England at both United and Chelsea because he wasn't given the time and space to play his game. The english game is a different game than the one they play on the continent. It has little to do with management.

mike65

I wont coment on the state of the English game but on the OP lack of paragraphs! I can't read that post!

Mike.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I just wanted to raise a few issues in relation to the current state of English football.
Has the standard ever been so low ?

The standard in English football is as good as it's been for 20 years. The only way to judge is Europe. All four English teams made the knockouts of the CL last year, two made the semis, and of course Liverpool won it. Three have made it to the knock-outs this year. Two winning their groups.

Football today is about winning. The costs of failure are too much.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I am a fan of passing ,flowing football,keeping the ball on the ground and playing to feet.

Arsenal when in the mood are as good as anyone to watch, including Barcelona.

I've actually been really impressed with Liverpool's football recently too. For the first time in years I've thought that they are playing not only impressive football, but effective football.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Football should be a creative not destructive game.
Fans primarily want their team to win matches but they also want to be entertained. The average standard of a Premiership match is very poor.
The pace of play is ridiculous ,its as if the match is being played at 100 miles an hour.

I can't fathom how you can consider a match being played at a fast pace as not "entertaining". Personally I don't find team playing the ball around the back four and holding midfielder at a snails pace as entertaining.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

In any game the away team will generally have 9-10 men behind the ball on most occasions,and rely upon,the long ball or catching a team on the break to score.

I'm currently watching Barcelona VS Sevilla. Gerry Armstrong is after saying "Every single white shirt is in the Sevilla half". It's 0-0 and it's only five minutes into the second half.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Some teams rely on setpieces as their best chance of scoring.

Which team "relies" on set pieces? All teams use set pieces, as they do in every league, but I don't know one that "relies" on them.

Set pieces may be the best chance of scoring against certain sides, but that is due to them having great defences, something I would associate with a good standard of football.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The top 2 teams in the Premiership (Chelsea and Liverpool) have based their success on a solid defence and are 2 extremely defensive sides that primarily rely on the long ball.

They don't rely primarily on the long ball. They have it as an option. Chelsea's top scorer is Frank Lampard, do you think he is getting on the end of Didier Drogba's flick ons? Most of his goals come from outside the box.

If Italian teams adopt this strategy successfully, they are lauded as efficient, and truly great sides. Why does the same not apply to the English ones now doing it?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I watch football to be entertained and I wont pay £40 to watch drivel.
Andy Gray and his chums on Sky believe the Premiership is the best league in the world.
He is delusional.

Gray is selling a product so he will say that. But he's not far off. Judging by performances in Europe over recent years, how can anyone say the the Premiership is definitely not the best league in the world.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I cant remember the last time I saw a good game of football in the Premiership.

Did you watch Charlton VS Man City last week? Cracking game.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Some teams rely on setpieces as their best chance of scoring.

Most goals in England are scored due to a defensive error under extreme pressure rather that a creative moment.

Barcelona equalise. A total cock up by a Sevilla defender from a corner kick.

county

considering the english league is by far the most watched football in the world,you are in the minority,and your point on the game being played at 100 mile an hour,that is english football and always has been,watching italian and most spainish football is like watching paint dry

theCzar

I'd love if Everton could play the ball a bit better and get back to the "School of Science" days and leave the "Dogs of War" era behind, but the fact is you can use a brawling mentality to punch above your weight (if you'll excuse the pun). I've always felt it was the reason England do unreasonably well internationally.

It's very frustrating to watch the ball getting pumped long every time, and I think Everton have a midfield who could play a nice passing game if only they had the confidence to try.

Greece are the best team in Europe apparently, Liverpool the best club team (before reds go crazy, I don't say they're long ball merchants but they play a more physical game that gave them an advantage over a lot of continental teams), We finished 4th last season, bolton finished 6th and will likely do so again. Long ball and big strong players who run their socks off will win more games than flair and creativity.

MisterAnarchy

The standard in English football is as good as it's been for 20 years. The only way to judge is Europe. All four English teams made the knockouts of the CL last year, two made the semis, and of course Liverpool won it. Three have made it to the knock-outs this year. Two winning their groups.

The top 4 teams in the league are infinitely better than the rest of the Premiership.
2 of the top 4 teams ,Chelsea and Liverpool employ industrial football methods which while being effective are not pretty .
Everton finished fourth last season and were embarassed in Europe.
Ugly football can be effective ,I'm not questioning that.

Arsenal when in the mood are as good as anyone to watch, including Barcelona.

I agree.
However people are now saying Arsenal do not have enough steel in midfield and are being out muscled by inferior football teams.
They have been physically hammered by Bolton and Newcastle in their last 2 away games.

I can't fathom how you can consider a match being played at a fast pace as not "entertaining".

A fast pace is good but the pace in the Premiership is mostly frenetic,kick and rush stuff.
Its too fast.
Players dont settle on the ball ,all they can think about is getting the ball up the other end of the pitch.

Judging by performances in Europe over recent years, how can anyone say the the Premiership is definitely not the best league in the world.

4 good teams out of 18 teams does not make a league good.

I've actually been really impressed with Liverpool's football recently too

You are joking ?
Liverpool are like a car with only 1 gear ,fifth gear.
They play at a frenetic ,almost insane pace.
Effective but awful on the eye.
It seems the end now does indeed justify the means.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The top 4 teams in the league are infinitely better than the rest of the Premiership.

The top ten of the Premiership has a very similar points distribution to Serie A, and to a lesser extent La Liga. I fail to see how this equates to the top four teams being "infinitely better" if the same does not apply to the other leagues.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

2 of the top 4 teams ,Chelsea and Liverpool employ industrial football methods which while being effective are not pretty .
Everton finished fourth last season and were embarassed in Europe.
Ugly football can be effective ,I'm not questioning that.

Everton are novices in terms of European football. They drew a team that topped Manchester Uniteds group. They lost 4-2 on aggregate, and as far as I remember wasn't there a somewhat controversial refereeing decision that went against them? I would hardly call that "embarassing".

MisterAnarchy wrote:

However people are now saying Arsenal do not have enough steel in midfield and are being out muscled by inferior football teams.
They have been physically hammered by Bolton and Newcastle in their last 2 away games.

Because the reality of it is, football is more than fancy tricks and flicks. Every team needs steel. Some teams employ it more than others. As I said, when the top Italian teams do it they are lauded, but we have to knock the English I suppose.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

A fast pace is good but the pace in the Premiership is mostly frenetic,kick and rush stuff. Its too fast. Players dont settle on the ball ,all they can think about is getting the ball up the other end of the pitch.

Ever watch Xabi Alonso? Claude Makélele? Paul Scholes? I wouldn't associate these with the picture you are describing. Coincidentally they all play in England.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

4 good teams out of 18 teams does not make a league good.

There are 20 teams in the Premiership.

I would consider Bolton and Boro to be good sides. They are both holding their own in Europe. I would also call Spurs a good side. Manchester City are a good side, and personally I think Newcastle have the potential to be a good side.

How many "good teams" are there in Italy or Spain? Would you name them?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

You are joking ?
Liverpool are like a car with only 1 gear ,fifth gear.
They play at a frenetic ,almost insane pace.
Effective but awful on the eye.
It seems the end now does indeed justify the means.

Liverpool play at an insane pace? If anything it is patient. Take yesterdays game as a prime example. They waited, waited and waited, never paniced and finally got the goals they deserved. The first one being a quality piece of football.

mike65

Strange, strange thread!

Liverpool play too sedately at times in my estimation. Anyway what the hell is "the English Game"? Is it the game which has 4 continental managers in the top flight and about 40% foreign players? When those players and managers work in the Prem they proberly over time become a bit more 'English' in attitude but they are still French, Spanish, German, Greek etc.

There is nothing sophisticated about stroking the ball about the place for the sake of it, the purpose of football is to win matches. If that means playing a long ball onto a players bonce so be it.

Mike.

mchurl

i presonally think that it is down to what style of football u prefer watchin and i have to say that i like the blood and thunder of the pl. In saying that though give me barca any day

KdjaCL

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Football today is about winning. The costs of failure are too much.

Hit the nail on the hammer there, but i have every faith in Brazil restoring the way in how to win football matches. This WC is my 6 WC and i have seen how club football follows the pattern of play in them, if a team with 11 players with "not losing" win it rather than 11 wjo intend to win it by scoring more. We are ****ed for a few years.

Barca* vs Chelsea* later in the season will show more as to how it will go.


*examples.

kdjac

MisterAnarchy

This WC is my 6 WC and i have seen how club football follows the pattern of play in them

Very true.
Look at how Ramseys wingless wonders changed the shape of football .

Barca* vs Chelsea* or vs Liverpool later in the season will show more as to how it will go.

If they meet and I hope they do ,for the sake of all that is good in this world Barcelona must win ,and win well.

Davei141

This thread is just a rant, because of what eamon dunphy said about the standard of the premiership. It was the exact same when Wenger said the premiership was boring, people had a field day, threads whinging about "boring premiership", counting the goals, clean sheets frowned upon...Then guess what happens?! Loads of goals fly in and everything is fine. Dunphy has a whinge and around we go. Change the record.

colster

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The top 2 teams in the Premiership (Chelsea and Liverpool) have based their success on a solid defence and are 2 extremely defensive sides that primarily rely on the long ball.

The ironic thing being that they are both coached by managers who started out in Spanish football.
Also, they are not defensive. They are attacking sides with good defenses. Chelsea sit back when they are ahead and play on the counter attack.
Another thing they are not total long ball merchants. They have the long ball in their armoury. Can you give an example of a goal either of them has scored using the long ball?
The fact is that they are both very organised, combative and very good passing sides.

MisterAnarchy

This thread is just a rant, because of what eamon dunphy said about the standard of the premiership.

Its not a rant.
I've had these opinions for quite a while now .

Loads of goals fly in and everything is fine

Hardly.Goals dont equal entertainment alone.
Teams are now so afraid of losing ,whether they are at the top or bottom of the table that they are resorting to kick and rush football.
A few weeks ago after a bad run of matches Derby County's manager came out in an interview and said that his team were playing too much nice football.
He wanted them to play cruder more direct football.
They are now unbeaten in 4 but playing brutal football.
Their match against preston last weekend was supposedly one of the worst matches seen at Pride Park in years.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Hardly.Goals dont equal entertainment alone.
Teams are now so afraid of losing ,whether they are at the top or bottom of the table that they are resorting to kick and rush football.

If "kick and rush football" was a sure fire way of not losing you would see everyone employing this tactic.

Anyway, what is "kick and rush football"? Pass and move football? Does this not equate to "good football"? Or do you mean long ball football with players running in support?

I think Colster summarised the style of ball that both Liverpool and Chelsea play quite well.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

A few weeks ago after a bad run of matches Derby County's manager came out in an interview and said that his team were playing too much nice football.
He wanted them to play cruder more direct football.
They are now unbeaten in 4 but playing brutal football.
Their match against preston last weekend was supposedly one of the worst matches seen at Pride Park in years.

Is your whole rant not about the standard of Premiership football? So what the hell do a midtable Championship side have to do with anything?

You have also failed to addressed any of the points I raised.

MisterAnarchy

Everton are novices in terms of European football. They drew a team that topped Manchester Uniteds group. They lost 4-2 on aggregate, and as far as I remember wasn't there a somewhat controversial refereeing decision that went against them? I would hardly call that "embarassing".

I seem to remember Everton being hammered 5-0 away in the UEFA cup first round.
Is that not an embarassment ?

Ever watch Xabi Alonso? Claude Makélele? Paul Scholes? I wouldn't associate these with the picture you are describing. Coincidentally they all play in England.

And they also coincidentally play for the top 4 teams.

Because the reality of it is, football is more than fancy tricks and flicks. Every team needs steel. Some teams employ it more than others. As I said, when the top Italian teams do it they are lauded, but we have to knock the English I suppose.

I'm not doubting that a team needs steel.
My point was that teams are using overly physical methods to 'roughen' Arsenal up so as to drag them down to their level,to level the playing field .

How many "good teams" are there in Italy or Spain? Would you name them?

You are missing the point.
Its 'Good footballing teams' not effective teams.
Most if not all teams in Spain attempt to play attractive football.

Anyway, what is "kick and rush football"?

Consistently hitting long hopeful balls from the defence bypassing midfield .
Most of these balls are played without looking for a forward and most of then are intercepted.

Pass and move football?

Pass and move football is the basis of good football.

Necronomicon

The problem is that good football (as per your definition MisterAnarchy) is not always the most effective football, and as someone pointed out earlier, the cost of not achieving goals in modern football can be severe.
Case in point, Barcalona. They have argueably the best attacking flair in the world, the best player in the world in Ronaldinho, and a tradition of fine attacking football. But last year they met Chelsea, who had more steel and were better organised. In the second leg at Stamford Bridge, Barca's defensive shortcomings were exposed as Chelsea ripped them apart, scoring 3 goals in the first 20 minutes if I remember. My point is that you can be attractive as any team in the world, but it's not the main criteria for being a 'good' team. Chelsea aren't as attractive to watch as Barca, but were better than them over two legs.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I seem to remember Everton being hammered 5-0 away in the UEFA cup first round.
Is that not an embarassment ?

Well you remember incorrectly. It was 5-1. But to be fair that was a pretty shocking result. However there are mitigating circumstances for Everton. The season was built up as their CL season, and they had already been knocked out. The team was deflated, evidence by seven losses out of eight games following their elimination.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

And they also coincidentally play for the top 4 teams.

There are plenty of other world class ball players playing for teams outside the top four. And plenty of other good ball playing teams.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I'm not doubting that a team needs steel.
My point was that teams are using overly physical methods to 'roughen' Arsenal up so as to drag them down to their level,to level the playing field.

And this happens as much in your beloved Spain as it does in England.

Do you really think that teams go to the Nou Camp or Bernabeu and try and pass their opponents off the park?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

You are missing the point.
Its 'Good footballing teams' not effective teams.
Most if not all teams in Spain attempt to play attractive football.

Seriously, how much of the teams do you get to see in Spain seeing as Barcelona are on every week these days. And in the rare occassions they are not on it's Real Madrid.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Consistently hitting long hopeful balls from the defence bypassing midfield. Most of these balls are played without looking for a forward and most of then are intercepted.

And this is what you claim Chelsea and Liverpool do? Despite both teams regularly playing with five in midfield? Are they trying to eliminate half their side from the game or something?

Chelsea and Liverpool do not play a long ball game.

WhiteWashMan

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Has the standard ever been so low ?

im not sure what your performance indicators are, so i dont know how you judge. personally, i think with 3 english teams and a scottish team in the last rounds of the CL, that there must be something good happening here....

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I am a fan of passing ,flowing football,keeping the ball on the ground and playing to feet..

dunno, im just iunfrom atching spurs v pompy, and spurs played fantastic ground football for the majority of the match. beaten in the first half by an absolute cracker of a goal from lualua (grudgingly given )

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Football should be a creative not destructive game..

says you. but football is about many things. not all teams play like real madrid in their hay day.
take bolton for example. a strong physical team, great skill, but very direct. not exactly your run of the mill harlem globe trotters, but good at what they do. are you saying we should turf them out of europe, ehere they are doing damn well, becuase they are not playing 'proper football'?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The average standard of a Premiership match is very poor..

that i dont know. i can only tell you that every single spurs match is sold out. i suspect every single arsenal and man utd match are sold out as well.
is the definition of good football based on gate receipts?
not really anything to do with football is it?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The average standard of a Premiership match is very poor..

again, according to you. i happen to think the premier has a high standard. hell, i watched the blackburn v west ham match, hardly a match of the day game, and yet, it was entertaining, full of energy and i was impressed by both teams play.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

In any game the away team will generally have 9-10 men behind the ball on most occasions,and rely upon,the long ball or catching a team on the break to score..

play ball around back for 15 minutes, counter attack.
oppostion gets ball
play ball around back for 15 minutes, counter attack.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Some teams rely on setpieces as their best chance of scoring..

we cant all have zidane on one wing and beckham on the other....

are you suggesting that playing to your teams strength is in some way a negative way to play?
or that its cheating.

or just that it doesnt entertain you.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Composure is missing in English football..

now that is rubbish.
watch any premiership team, and they are all, without exception composed on the ball.
i think the nature of the english game, played at a franetic pace as it is, will make any player pass the ball quickly.
what do you want, some guy to sit on the ball for 5 minutes like italian football?
why would the opostion do that?

hey, have the ball and ake as longa s you want to try and score. hey, why dont i just move out of the way for you?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I am a fan of Spanish football.
Last night Real Sociedad and Villareal played out a very entertaining match.
The ball remained on the ground for most of the match and the ball was in play for long periods at a time..

ok, so you prefer that style of football?
so what?

i watched spurs pompy as i said. very entertaining.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The fans demand that the game be played in a positive manner and as the fans own most of the clubs the teams attempt to play good football.
Contrast this with England..

i think you will find the fans of both countries want to have a team that wins.

i bet every real madrid fan right now would settle for a good old arsenal style 1-0 win for the rest of season if the win the league......

only spurs fans demand you lose with style. for some strange reason....

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Never has the state of football been so poor there.
It seems if you are fast ,strong and athletic you have the making of a valuable footballer.Skill seems to be secondary..

so footballers should all be like matt letissieur and lauren robert eh?
lazy with moments of genious?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The pace of the game is far too fast. .

for what?
record it and play on slow mo. youll get an extra 3 hours inthe game as well.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Passing football is almost frowned upon as if you make a bad pass it could be intercepted..

??????

why not put up some stats about passing from both leagues and see who does what.
i watched some wonderful passing movements tonight.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Most goals in England are scored due to a defensive error under extreme pressure rather that a creative moment..

then it goes to show how great the defense is, and how good the goal scorers are to take advanatge.

what exactly are you looking for?

it seems to be a case of damned if you do and damned if you dont!

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Players are encouraged to get rid of the ball ,instead of holding it..

dont agree.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

How many times after a match has a manager said 'We showed great commitment,fought hard,battled hard,showed great tenacity ' ?

after every match this year. and its a good thing when a manger of a spurs side says it.
and yes, the word skill sometimes gets bandied about. but only after watching matches of decent foreign football games.
the premier players are forced to watch at least 6 hours of spanish football a day just to show them how its played.
when was the last time spain won the world cup?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

What about hearing 'We played some good flowing football '?.

HA!
martin Jol said it tonight.
but in a dutch accent!

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The top 2 teams in the Premiership (Chelsea and Liverpool) have based their success on a solid defence and are 2 extremely defensive sides that primarily rely on the long ball..

and?

(and i dont believe that either of the do.)

MisterAnarchy wrote:

There motto is that if we dont concede then we can grind the opponent down ..

ah, youre thinking of arsenal of the ealry/mid 90's

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I watch football to be entertained and I wont pay £40 to watch drivel..

go watch eircom football so. its up there with panto.

he's behind you!

oh no hes not!

although, tis more expensive to fly to seville for a game than get a coach to liverpool.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Andy Gray and his chums on Sky believe the Premiership is the best league in the world.
He is delusional..

2 things.
1, he is certainly entitled to his opinion, and he gets paid to give it.
2, he knows more about football than you do!

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I cant remember the last time I saw a good game of football in the Premiership..

well, no one can make you enjoy something. if you dont like, hell dont watch it.
im not going to try and change your mind, youre certainly entitled to whinge about the state of english football, but the facts are that english teams have been doing well in europe over the past 5 or 6 years.
foreign players want to join the top english clibs.
most players acknowledge that the english leauge is the place to be.
most people on the planet think that the english league is the best.
most people on the planet thing the english league is the most entertaining.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this topic.

i think youre a sunderland supporter, and who could blame you for being depressed

WhiteWashMan

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I seem to remember Everton being hammered 5-0 away in the UEFA cup first round.
Is that not an embarassment ?

im sure that was celtic, but thats scotland, and by definition isnt actually football....

Slash/ED

Necromomicon wrote:

The problem is that good football (as per your definition MisterAnarchy) is not always the most effective football, and as someone pointed out earlier, the cost of not achieving goals in modern football can be severe.
Case in point, Barcalona. They have argueably the best attacking flair in the world, the best player in the world in Ronaldinho, and a tradition of fine attacking football. But last year they met Chelsea, who had more steel and were better organised. In the second leg at Stamford Bridge, Barca's defensive shortcomings were exposed as Chelsea ripped them apart, scoring 3 goals in the first 20 minutes if I remember. My point is that you can be attractive as any team in the world, but it's not the main criteria for being a 'good' team. Chelsea aren't as attractive to watch as Barca, but were better than them over two legs.

Chelsea may have gone 3-0 up, but ripped them apart they didn't. Barca controlled most of that match, missed a few chances and were ultimately denied by Chelsea cheating.

And outside the top teams in the premiership imo the standard is awful and I simply can't watch it, and I'm an eircom league fan ffs, so you know the matches must be really poor for that to be the case. Whereas in Spain pretty much any two teams put on a better show. I just find it a far, far superior product to watch, but that's only my opinion. People here will follow English/Scottish football as their first choice irregardless of things like standard anyway.

foreign players want to join the top english clibs.
most players acknowledge that the english leauge is the place to be.
most people on the planet think that the english league is the best.
most people on the planet thing the english league is the most entertaining.

Latter two points may be correct, but your first two are complete nonsense.

Pigman II

I couldn't give a damn about 'The Premiership' but two teams I can watch all day (esp in Europe) are Chelsea and Liverpool. TBH I'm more a fan of their managers than I am of the teams themselves but I prefer their modern approach to football than that which you seem to lament the loss of so much.

MisterAnarchy

And outside the top teams in the premiership imo the standard is awful and I simply can't watch it, and I'm an eircom league fan ffs, so you know the matches must be really poor for that to be the case. Whereas in Spain pretty much any two teams put on a better show. I just find it a far, far superior product to watch, but that's only my opinion. People here will follow English/Scottish football as their first choice irregardless of things like standard anyway.

Seems we are in the minority here .

are you suggesting that playing to your teams strength is in some way a negative way to play?
or that its cheating.

Playing rubbish football is not playing to their strengths.
Why dont they try and pass the ball,they are 'Professionals' after all.
Thats my whole point.
They are skilled footballers but most teams are playing in a neanderthal manner.

most people on the planet think that the english league is the best.
most people on the planet thing the english league is the most entertaining.

Most people on the planet eh ?
The planet earth doesnt consist of the British Isles alone
You dont work for Sky by any chance do you ?

i think youre a sunderland supporter, and who could blame you for being depressed

I'm actually a Man Utd fan ,have been for over 25 years.
Before you comment I have been a season ticket holder there and for Real Madrid in the past.